Is Free Republic too "Republican?"

Long live the GOP!

Now my very next post to you is going to be to agree. Yes, I think there are conservative Dems, though not a whole heck of a lot. What are your opinions on James Traficant? Despite his eccentricity, I really liked him and think he got railroaded by his fellow Dems.

LOL! bump.

...but I have strayed a few times, either voting for the 'best' candidate or often voting 'against' the 'worse' choice.

Is that like "voting your conscience"? Or "voting your principles"? Or "voting your morals"? Or making the candidate "earn your vote"? Is it something like that?

Count me out of "we", please. I want nothing to do with the political party that created the War between the States back in 1863.

I hear what you're saying, but how does that help us today?

When it comes time to drop your ballot in the box, there will be two choices. If you vote Democrat, you will get more socialism than a Republican vote.

Politics are local. Where I live we have good coservatives, but they can't get elected.

I like to think that conservatives can take over the Republican Party, but I may be wrong.

Incidentally, I don't consider any of the republican leadership to be conservative. We need to change that, but that can only be done from the local level. If conservatives would demand that the party give support to local conservatives, we would make progress.

- "self-obsessed denial-soaked mess" -
711 -KC-

Mirror, mirror on the wall, ---

I was there with the freepers in Sacramento, that's what got me hooked on FR, and have been a long time lurker on FR. In fact, FreeRepublic is probably the most popular site on the net with the people who live here. Most get their ammo for the lively political discussions we have at the local saloon from FR. The other big website with us is Reason.org.

The last cycle was horrible, that's for sure. But progress was made. The commies didn't get the total control they expected, and are on the defensive. Bush will win re-election easily, and that will further weaken them.

I don't see Bush as the savior some do, he is too socialist for my likes, but at least we got some time to regroup and prepare for the next assault.

but, no way people are going to read all 700 (and growing) posts and besides, you simply asked a question.

I did. :)

"I don't consider any of the republican leadership to be conservative." -- LittleJoe

You are not alone.

Well, I guess you got me there. Let's elect Hillary next time.

Yikes!!!
That could easily happen if we all go running off to support our favorite third party candidates.

I live in the heart of the Democrat Mid-South, and seeing the destruction of the socialists, democrats, and liberals firsthand makes me cringe until I can come here, and witness that there are others who:

support smaller government;
pro-life and pro-family (even with the flame marks and burned clothing);
pro-2nd amendment;
limits on immigration.

That being said, I think that by affiliating this grassroots conservative organization would hinder, hamper, and corrode the issues we are trying to inform our elected officials about. We should remain independent so we can hold our elected officials accountable for the decisions they make, and work to change the laws that are eroding the land that we love.

So, my answer is No. This is your Consitutional Monarchy, and you are the leader. Decide and continue with it.

You might want to read up on this thread, and maybe comment.

we have Libertarians, Independents and others here who, in a national election, agree with you and will vote Republican, but in local politics like to maintain their identity

Bingo!
You have put into words what I have failed to do.
As a conservative Republican, the trashing of Libertarians here really bothers me. The very best members of my community are conservative Libertarians.

FO:"As I sometimes point out, and the "non-Republican conservatives" don't like it, nevertheless it's fact: Clinton was NOT elected by stupid liberals, Clinton was elected by exactly the conservative wing, who "was going to show Bush I" their displeasure by voting for Ross Perot, instead of Bush, and they did. Well, they showed him all right, the net result was 8 years of Clinton, and I don't need to explain what that did to the country.

MCH "At the time, Perot came across as much more conservative than Bush I. Who knew? "

----
FO:
Lots of us knew, anyone with any sense knew, and many of us were pleading on our knees with the "purist ideological conservatives" trying to explain that a vote for Ross Perot, instead of Bush, is a vote for Clinton. But unfortunately they didn't listen.

What is worse is that these "purist ideological conservatives" haven't learned a thing from all that, they still spend more time bashing Republicans, thereby helping our common enemy, the Democrats.

Don't take this personally, because it's not meant that way in the least, especially since I really don't know your posts, but doesn't it just make you wonder that at least some of the people here and elsewhere who bash Republicans because they are "oh, so pure conservatives" could be Democrat "agent provocateurs" trying the split up the conservatives/Republicans -- "divide and conquer", remember, and some others are true believers in the ultimate conservative ideals, but end up being "useful idiots" used by the Democrat "agents".

(Donning asbestos suit) But before you get out your torches and flame throwers, please read the above carefully and let me clarify in addition, I do believe that the vast majority of Republicans, libertarians, conservatives, etc. on the Free Republic are all true patriots, want what's best for the country, and so on, but step back and think of people's post you sometimes come across, if they don't fit my speculation as to who they are and what their motives are.

One additional thought, for people to ponder:
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend", "Politics makes strange bedfellows". What all this says is that to fight the Democrats, the greatest threat to our country, and conservatism, successfully, Republicans, libertarians, independents need to focus on our commonalities and common interests, and unite in the fight against Democrats.

Obviously that doesn't mean we can't have our own spirited discussions, but when the chips are down, as in voting, the only way to defeat the Democrats is to support the Republican party. Just as in a family, you have your familty squabbles, disagreements, fights, whatever, but when the chips are down "blood is thicker than water", as they say.

"Conservative to me means striving for smaller, less intrusive government (actually constitutionally limited government as defined by our founders) which will lead to less tax (no income tax, no social security tax, no medicare tax), no federal give-aways of any kind, etc. Also will lead to smaller federal government because most of what is now being done by the feds would be returned to the states and or not done at all (ie, returned to the people). Also will mean stronger national defense, because that is job number one for the feds. Also, better defended national sovereignty and fewer and less destructive (to our rights and our national interest) treaties. As a bonus, will lead to and end to abortion, end to homosexualism being forced on our school children and forced down our throats, and without the income tax, end government control over religion, charities, public interest organizations, etc. Conservatives, IMHO, are interested in securing/defending constitutional government, defending and preserving our rights and individual freedoms, and maintaing moral society.
The liberals are just about 100% opposite on all of these principles. In the current environment, 98.8% (just made that up, but I'm sure it's a high number) of the liberals reside in the Democrat Party. Thus, the Democrat Party = liberal. And Liberal = socialist/marxist/etc, thus undesirable to conservatives. May not have always been that way, but that's the way it is now.
Republicans are mostly conservatives of various stripes. Republicans generally strive for less government, less tax, less intrusion, fewer regulations, strong national defense, oppose abortion, oppose the homosexual agenda, oppose feminism, oppose gun-control, etc. Generally supports the Constitution and the rule of law and original intent. The more conservative Republicans do a better job, the moderates less, and the liberal Republicans (mostly in the east) are weenies.
I'm assuming the Constitution Party supports the Constitution. But I've read they may be biased by religion. Not sure if that is true. I'm also thinking they are very few in number and have slim to no chance of being elected anywhere." -- Jim Robinson

I like the discussion of current American politics with the backdrop of our US Constitution. The marked differentiation is an enigma to me; I am serious, too, because I might be able to discuss Maxwell's equations in regards to very small electrical substrate topologies and resulting waveform transfer-function characteristics but I can't explain contemporary politics in America. I am perplexed; I am baffled about how a people can surrender their dignity to political parties that in turn create a massive oppressive government that not only taxes them to death but seriously limits their individual freedoms.

But, I know something is wrong with America. I know the accumulation of laws that have deviated from the foundations about our great nation is strangling each and everyone of us. And I use my little political knowledge to challenge those that seem to find a comfort zone within their own political party because, there is no comfort zone about any political party that makes laws against the Constitutional framework of our nation.

We are talking about the republicans and the democrats, aren't we? As though this is some huge battle for the hearts and souls and minds of Americans; but the real battle is that government has consumed us and your political alignment considerations have guaranteed the loss of our republic.

All American politicians, both republicans and democrats alike, are nothing more than charlatans ... inventors of a perpetual motion machine called government; as an electrical engineer, I know better..... all the republocrats are fighting for is political power, power to continue a perpetual motion machine.

Best Regards! Buckeroo

For what it is worth, I am happy that that dork WyldCard was kicked off this forum.

...I don't consider any of the republican leadership to be conservative.

Is Tom Delay too Liberal for you?

JR: "My current goal is to defeat liberalism by defeating the Democrat Party."
---

And that is the goal we all should have. I think FR is a great forum as is and has become very powerful, I think more powerful, than many realize.

I think calling FR a conservative forum still applies. Even conservatism has various shades: some can be fiscally conservatives, and socially more liberals, or vice versa, some can be "compassionate conservatives", etc., some are conservatives with a realistic streak, some are "purist conservatives" who "never give an inch", even if it means handing the country over to the socialists.

I think leaving it that way is a good idea, rather than specifically calling it Republican, because conservative characterization fits it better and still keeps it "non-partisan". Just as Townhall or the Heritage Foundation call themselves conservatives, and don't associate themselves specifically with the Republican party. I think specifically associating FR with the Republican party would narrow it and may exclude others who may not be registered Republicans but do have conservative ideas.

At the same time, I think those in the Forum who would like to exclude all but the most conservatives, would set FR back, and turn it into a fringe discussion group, instead of a mainstream one, as it has become.

I have noticed time and time again, that articles by established writers and columnists appear, AFTER some topic has been discussed on FR and some points are made here, which then find their way into the media, which millions read.

I think FR has become a very powerful organization, not just because of Freeping, which certainly an important part, but also as a place, where other mainstream writers get ideas and facts supporting those ideas. To change FR by either calling it "Republican" or narrowing its conservative focus, would lose this rich content, so for my two cents, let's keep it, as it is.

Perhaps some of the participant could become more tolerant of those whose ideas are a few shades different from theirs, but we need to keep our eyes on the ball: our main enemy are the Democrats, NOT other Republicans of moderate conservatives or ultraconservatives.

Despite his eccentricity, I really liked him and think he got railroaded by his fellow Dems.

Eccentricity?
Oh yeah,that is what we call the truth now.

He was railroaded by the Rs too. He was too hot to handle.

Jimbo, I vote "Nay". IMO, you really have something here and attaching us to a party would hurt us.